Posted by DanielS on Mon, 26 Oct 2015 01:30 | #

What is wrong with Monarchy? Don’t they represent the quintessential DNA family of the Nation? It seems like a Jewy, “Red Leftist” kind of thing to want the most emblematic family of a native nation to be taken down as some sort of knee-jerk requirement.

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Mon, 26 Oct 2015 02:41 | #

Well, item number 2 on the list, ‘Abolish the Swedish monarchy’, is there for three reasons.

The first reason is because in a consistent leftist platform, particularly one which is designed to bait social democrats into backpedalling, I’d want to make sure to press them on that contradiction. Almost half the population of Sweden claims to have ‘republican sympathies’, yet at the same time the social democratic coalition—essentially the faux-left—never ever tables the issue of abolishing the monarchy because they incomprehensibly claim that ‘it is not a vote-winner’.

Of course, it actually would be a vote-winner to a great extent if someone were to start a campaign about it, but I suspect that the real reason that liberals and faux-left won’t do that is because they are economically intertwined with them to such a degree that it would be disadvantageous for themselves economically if they did that. So the question itself of whether to abolish the monarchy, would act here as a kind of ‘troll move’, which can only produce shameful responses from them.

The second reason for it being on the list is because the Swedish royal family literally supports the multicultural agenda and has no care for the Swedish people whatsoever. Any royal family that could deliberately support what is happening in Sweden, cannot possibly be characterised as ‘the quintessential DNA family of the nation’. Monarchy sometimes has that connection, but in the case of the Swedish royal family that connection clearly is non-existent.

The third reason for it being on the list, is because the Swedish crown is literally just an ornament that has been passed onto the head of the descendants of a dubious marshal from the Napoleonic war. And let me be clear, I’m not playing the tired old card of saying that ‘they are not from country X, therefore they are illegitimate’. No, my argument on this point is much different from that. The Swedish royal family are the descendants of Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, Prince de Ponte Corvo, who was actually a commoner. Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte served as one of Napoleon Bonaparte’s marshals, and spent his entire career being a self-serving weasel who never held a value or a political position that he wasn’t able to betray.

Bernadotte was a republican at first, yet he himself later became King of Sweden. Bernadotte professed support for Napoleon’s idea of a united and liberal European continent, yet ended his career calling himself the King of Sweden, enacting some of the most conservative policies of the era and standing with the Sixth Coalition by the year 1813. He actually added Swedish soldiers to the Battle of Leipzig on the side of the Sixth Coalition against Napoleon and all his former comrades in the French army.

But the signs that he was that kind of unreliable person emerged a lot earlier than that. At the battle of Jena and at the battle of Auerstadt back in 1806, Marshals Lannes, Bertrand, and Davout pretty much had to save the day themselves, and Marshal Bernadotte was nearby but did essentially nothing to assist them in any way. At Auerstadt in particular, the day was only saved for the French because Davout was able to carry out one of his typical genius plans, but had that not occurred, it would have a been a disaster.

In 1809 at the Battle of Wagram, Marshall Bernadotte again proved himself to be unreliable. He ended up somehow losing almost a third of his soldiers and got pushed back at Aderklaa, and Napoleon was so angry with him that he fired him immediately and dismissed him from the French army.

The rest is not complex. A jobless Bernadotte happened to be in the right place at the right time, as Gustav IV of Sweden had just been overthrown as a result of infighting within the Swedish ruling class, and they happened to be in the market for a new person to place the Swedish crown onto the head of. Why? Because the person they had replaced Gustav IV with was Charles XIII, who was both sickly and childless. This meant that the Swedish ruling class had just manoeuvred themselves into one of the most ridiculous possible situations, as they soon would not have a royal family at all. Scrambling, to find an answer, Carl Otto Mörner decided to reach out to Bernadotte, who accepted the appeal and became the adopted son of Charles XIII.

Bernadotte now became ‘Prince Charles John of Sweden’. By 1818, Charles XIII had died, and Bernadotte became King Charles XIV of Sweden and Norway. And that is a short overview of how a revolutionary republican French general was able to betray everything that he stood for so that he could become a deeply conservative monarch who barely survived the Rabulist riots of the 1830s when the Swedish people started calling for him to be deposed.

General Lasalle—one of the true advocates of the soldier’s approach to life and who died at the Battle of Wagram back in 1809 at age 34—is said to have spoken the words that “Any Hussar who survives his thirties should be held in contempt”.

Marshall Bernadotte lived until the cowardly age of 81 and ended up as ‘King Charles XIV of Sweden and Norway’. The presently-existing Swedish royal family is the House of Bernadotte. Make of that what you will. I have no love for them. Those reasons are the reasons why item number 2 is not just on the list to frustrate the faux-left, but also because Sweden’s monarchy genuinely is a disgusting thing and it needs to abolished.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 26 Oct 2015 04:00 | #

Very well said. I initially recoiled because it does come across as a Jewy thing to express in wholesale inclination, a wish to overthrow not only the particular manifestation of (what should be) the emblematic native family of a European nation, but the institution of that native representation altogether. However, you have convinced me that not only is this particular family not appropriately native for the throne of Sweden, but quite the opposite, representing the utmost in cuckoldry of the native peoples - with a cowardly defector from another nation’s revolutionary army. A would-be representative but in fact a defector from a native people’s revolution - who would not only go AWOL, runaway and fail to cooperate in deposing treacherous royal elite, but would in fact impose himself as a wholly inappropriate alien on the throne of yet another nation, in faux representation of its best interests - is exactly one, quintessentially one, who a Swedish left should despise and depose. These people certainly do not belong on the throne representing the central-most Swedish family.

However, while I am not aware offhand of any salient examples of a monarchy which is completely loyal, consistent and accountable to the native people’s interests, logically there could be personified royalty who would be consistent with the class, the social union, that is the native people - the institution could be consistent with the left, the union of native, in this case native Swedish, peoples. However, that is not to say that it should necessarily be maintained as an institution or that abolishing the institution is inconsistent with White leftism either - it is probably more consistent to abolish it from that perspective. It is optional and perhaps should not be maintained, even with a native family of truly loyal nativist disposition.

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Mon, 26 Oct 2015 04:26 | #

Of course, there are monarchies that are relatively inoffensive, or are even in fact strong and vibrant expressions of national spiritual power. And so that would be a totally different situation, one which would be okay.

It’s just that House of Bernadotte of course is not one of those and is not okay.

The story of Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte also is like a kind of archetype of the overall regression of liberalism after the mid-1800s, where after it ascended to power as an ideology and had completely triumphed, it turned and found itself joining hands with old established landed gentry and ecclesiastical powers, because its architects failed to articulate any criticism of the untrammelled fencing off of private property. Since economic power precedes political power, the outcome would not be difficult to foresee.

They are unable to part ways with these institutions because they are unable to make any exceptions to one of the core tenets of liberalism, its untrammelled defence of all private property claims.

Rather than doing ‘political economy’ based on the interests of a particular ethnic group trying to maintain its own mastery over its civic space, liberals instead are like hired prize fighters for landowners and big capitalists no matter who they might be. When determining economic policy, they will always tend to do the things which those who butter their bread ask them to do, and in an economy in which landowners and big capitalists are dominant and are not challenged, it creates a positive feedback loop of wealth accumulation into the hands of those same people. For that reason, they find themselves always defending an ever-more retrograde economic order. Particularly on the level of political party figures, they all live in nice white gated communities, they are deeply implicated with the most entrenched and ossified elements of Sweden’s economy, and so have neither the ability nor the motive to offer any solution to Sweden’s economic crisis—of which the migration crisis is a subset.

There’s a phrase that goes ‘situation dictates response’. The solution to all problems is not a cookie cutter solution that can be applied everywhere. But what I think that the Swedish people need to understand is that the people who are killing their country are perfectly happy to hide behind the establishment structures insofar as those structures serve their interests. They need to realise that basically all Swedish institutions are constructs, and that all constructs can be created or destroyed by anyone, and so being able to think of all of Sweden’s institutions as ‘fake’ and ‘expendable’, is another part of what my article is getting at. There is no otherworldly force out there which would care to stop anyone from basically razing all Swedish institutions to the ground and starting the country over as a republic based on actually defending the ethnic genetic interests (EGI) of Swedes.

I would hope that no one in Sweden would avoid doing their duty to their people out of fear that they might be ‘betraying’ the House of Bernadotte, and that ‘betraying’ it is ‘a bad thing to do’. There is nothing there of value to betray, no one owes that family an allegiance at this stage, they are beyond useless even in the most cynical of political calculations. No matter what emblems they are cowering behind while the country collapses around them, those emblems are meaningless if there is no country left for them to fight for.

Within the next generation or so, Sweden will probably collapse politically if the migration situation presently unfolding there happens to continue to unfold, so I think that the Swedish people—particularly those in its military—really need to start the mental process of letting go of those attachments so that they would be psychologically prepared to do what must be done, without hesitating, and showing no mercy when the time comes to put an end to the presently-existing Swedish society.

Posted by Leicester Speech on Tue, 22 Dec 2015 13:42 | #

Top heavy on the Nietzsche and anti-social angle though he may be, as one who sets a bar of right-wing thinking that those of fuller social, racial consciousness must surpass, Greg Johnson is correct to highlight Jonathan Bowden’s speeches as exemplary.

Bowden was brilliant. He was particularly uncanny in his understanding of the pernicious mindset from and of Marxist ideology.

Posted by Radio Free Skyrim on Sat, 05 Mar 2016 07:30 | #

Radio Free Skyrim - a round table of Danish, Norwegian and Swedish nationalist/tribalists who have intelligent laughs focusing on the absurd politics of White Nationalism, Sweden, the rest of Scandinavia, etc. In this episode they have some additional laughs at Sevitri Devi’s expense: https://soundcloud.com/radio-free-skyrim/episode-16-queen-of-the-cat-ladies

They don’t get the social constructionism thing, but it’s forgivable.

Posted by Sweden, the gift that keeps on giving on Wed, 18 May 2016 12:18 | #

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 26 May 2018 19:55 | #

....tossing-off the example that he might not be entitled to just go ahead and marry the queen of Sweden (who isn’t pure Swedish, but never mind, I’m not trying to do the Jewish, “it’s all so relative” thing because it isn’t quite that relative, generally speaking)